Cancer Res Treat.  2021 Apr;53(2):558-566. 10.4143/crt.2020.637.

External Validation of the Long Short-Term Memory Artificial Neural Network-Based SCaP Survival Calculator for Prediction of Prostate Cancer Survival

• Lim B
• Lee KS
• Lee YH
• Kim S
• Min C
• Park JY
• Lee HS
• Cho JS
• Kim SI
• Chung BH
• Kim CS
• Koo KC

• KMID: 2514936
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2020.637

Abstract

Purpose
Decision-making for treatment of newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa) is complex due to the multiple initial treatment modalities available. We aimed to externally validate the SCaP (Severance Study Group of Prostate Cancer) Survival Calculator that incorporates a long short-term memory artificial neural network (ANN) model to estimate survival outcomes of PCa according to initial treatment modality. Materials and Methods The validation cohort consisted of clinicopathological data of 4,415 patients diagnosed with biopsy-proven PCa between April 2005 and November 2018 at three institutions. Area under the curves (AUCs) and time-to-event calibration plots were utilized to determine the predictive accuracies of the SCaP Survival Calculator in terms of progression to castration-resistant PCa (CRPC)–free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Results Excellent discrimination was observed for CRPC-free survival, CSS, and OS outcomes, with AUCs of 0.962, 0.944, and 0.884 for 5-year outcomes and 0.959, 0.928, and 0.854 for 10-year outcomes, respectively. The AUC values were higher for all survival endpoints compared to those of the development cohort. Calibration plots showed that predicted probabilities of 5-year survival endpoints had concordance comparable to those of the observed frequencies. However, calibration performances declined for 10-year predictions with an overall underestimation. Conclusion The SCaP Survival Calculator is a reliable and useful tool for determining the optimal initial treatment modality and for guiding survival predictions for patients with newly diagnosed PCa. Further modifications in the ANN model incorporating cases with more extended follow-up periods are warranted to improve the ANN model for long-term predictions.

Keyword

Decision support techniques; External validation; Prostatic neoplasms; Survival

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Time-to-event calibration plots for 5-year castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)–free survival (A), cancer-specific survival (CSS) (B), and overall survival (OS) outcomes (C), and 10-year CRPC-free survival (D), CSS (E), and OS outcomes (F). Calibration plots were assessed by predicted probabilities according to quintiles (left column) and by evenly distributing the number of samples (right column).

Reference

References

1. Ha Chung B, Horie S, Chiong E. The incidence, mortality, and risk factors of prostate cancer in Asian men. Prostate Int. 2019; 7:1–8.

2. Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ, D’Amico AV, Davis BJ, Dorff T, et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019; 17:479–505.

3. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: Risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. 2018; 199:683–90.

4. Martinez-Gonzalez NA, Plate A, Senn O, Markun S, Rosemann T, Neuner-Jehle S. Shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening and treatment: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Swiss Med Wkly. 2018; 148:w14584.

5. Cuypers M, Lamers RE, Cornel EB, van de Poll-Franse LV, de Vries M, Kil PJ. The impact of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment decision-making on health-related quality of life before treatment onset. Support Care Cancer. 2018; 26:1297–304.

6. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017; 71:618–29.

7. Spelt L, Nilsson J, Andersson R, Andersson B. Artificial neural networks: a method for prediction of survival following liver resection for colorectal cancer metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013; 39:648–54.

8. Peng JH, Fang YJ, Li CX, Ou QJ, Jiang W, Lu SX, et al. A scoring system based on artificial neural network for predicting 10-year survival in stage II A colon cancer patients after radical surgery. Oncotarget. 2016; 7:22939–47.

9. Kourou K, Exarchos TP, Exarchos KP, Karamouzis MV, Fotiadis DI. Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2015; 13:8–17.

10. Koo KC, Lee KS, Kim S, Min C, Min GR, Lee YH, et al. Long short-term memory artificial neural network model for prediction of prostate cancer survival outcomes according to initial treatment strategy: development of an online decision-making support system. World J Urol. 2020; 38:2469–76.

11. Kiernan D. Natural resources biometrics. Chapter 7: Correlation and simple linear regression [Internet]. New York: Open SUNY;2014. [cited 2020 Oct 5]. Available from: https://textbooks.opensuny.org/natural-resources-biometrics/ .

12. van Kleef JJ, van den Boorn HG, Verhoeven RH, Vanschoenbeek K, Abu-Hanna A, Zwinderman AH, et al. External validation of the Dutch SOURCE survival prediction model in Belgian metastatic oesophageal and gastric cancer patients. Cancers (Basel). 2020; 12:834.

13. D’Amico AV, Cote K, Loffredo M, Renshaw AA, Schultz D. Determinants of prostate cancer-specific survival after radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20:4567–73.

14. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Risk assessment for prostate cancer metastasis and mortality at the time of diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101:878–87.

15. Oh SE, Seo SW, Choi MG, Sohn TS, Bae JM, Kim S. Prediction of overall survival and novel classification of patients with gastric cancer using the survival recurrent network. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25:1153–9.

16. Obrzut B, Kusy M, Semczuk A, Obrzut M, Kluska J. Prediction of 5-year overall survival in cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy using computational intelligence methods. BMC Cancer. 2017; 17:840.

17. Qiao G, Li J, Huang A, Yan Z, Lau WY, Shen F. Artificial neural networking model for the prediction of post-hepatectomy survival of patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 29:2014–20.

18. Snow PB, Rodvold DM, Brandt JM. Artificial neural networks in clinical urology. Urology. 1999; 54:787–90.

19. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010; 21:128–38.

20. Collins GS, Ogundimu EO, Altman DG. Sample size considerations for the external validation of a multivariable prognostic model: a resampling study. Stat Med. 2016; 35:214–26.